From: | Georg Rudoy <0xd34df00d@×××××.com> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror | ||
Date: | Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:41:14 | ||
Message-Id: | 5b9b03a3.1c69fb81.8e7fa.5c8b@mx.google.com | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror by Fabian Groffen |
1 | On 13.09.2018 at 16:20 user Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
2 | >> > To illustrate harmless: |
3 | >> > warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] |
4 | >> > The warning message already has it in it that it's just a pure guess. |
5 | >> |
6 | >> One that exposed a lot of unintentional fallthoughs which were fixed |
7 | >> when reporting to upstream. |
8 | > |
9 | > Sure that's why the warning is there. But you ignore the point that the |
10 | > same code compiled fine and ran fine for years without problems. |
11 | |
12 | I have more than a few examples of my code compiling fine and running "fine" |
13 | for years (so that no observable defects were visible), yet newly introduced |
14 | warnings or static analyzer runs showed the defects that resolved actual bugs |
15 | when fixed. And, ironically, that also includes the fallthrough |
16 | warnings [1-3]. |
17 | |
18 | And cases of me stumbling upon some other legacy code, compiling it with a |
19 | newer compiler and going "WTF how it even managed to produce anything meaningful |
20 | at all?" are not uncommon. |
21 | |
22 | Just my two C++ents here. |
23 | |
24 | [1] https://github.com/0xd34df00d/leechcraft/commit/663b69249cd61d1cbd490a3eee7909ae26d03240 |
25 | [2] https://github.com/0xd34df00d/leechcraft/commit/fa8ff9dc315e894fada4aaf73534bdfc15121cb3 |
26 | [3] https://github.com/0xd34df00d/leechcraft/commit/6b26961b52b6e8277db39b084f483d1959253313 |
27 | |
28 | |
29 | -- |
30 | Georg Rudoy |